O presente artigo pretende, de modo geral, resgatar o debate pluralista-solidarista da Escola Inglesa (EI), que polariza a perspectiva teórica das RI assumidamente de middle ground e que é responsável por atualizá-la de meados dos anos 1990 em diante. A partir deste debate interno à Escola, focaremos em uma das questões internacionais que mais a desafiou no sentido de manter a virtude da via média: as intervenções de caráter humanitário dos anos 1990 em diante e seus desdobramentos sob a doutrina da Responsibility to Protect (R2P), formalmente institucionalizada em 2005. Argumenta-se, a partir desse debate, que a denominação dos que compõem a EI de “institucionalistas britânicos” não parece equivocada, já que o conceito de instituições primárias da sociedade internacional, no rastro da problematização feita por Barry Buzan, permite-nos compreender as práticas intervencionistas mais contemporâneas para além da cisão pluralismo/solidarismo, mantendo, assim, a EI fiel ao middle ground

The COVID-19 pandemic has been (re)creating new global geographies of death, which specifically impact the Global South and expose its continuum of vulnerabilities – unequally distributed in terms of race, gender, class, and so on. In the Americas, we can identify the emergence of a new regional governance of death, associated with a set of practical recommendations by the Organization of American States (OAS) constraining states’ policy responses to COVID-19 and installing a new global governance lexicon. Recommendations concerning the disposal of dead bodies, full respect for both collective and family grief, and indications of alternative ways to conduct funerals and memorial services, for instance, seem to evoke new multilateral responses, paving the way for a new governance model: one that centres death within regional policymaking. This points to a change in the treatment of death from a purely private to a politically infused issue. Theoretically, this article aims to bridge the gap between Death Studies and Global Governance literatures. Supported by Michel Foucault’s genealogical method, the goal is to critically reconceptualise the meanings and framings of death landscapes in the Americas, pointing us to the correlation of forces that enabled the normative emergence of death in the OAS in this particular historical moment.

This article investigates sovereign (in)equality as a phenomenon that is manifested in thedifferent levels of international institutions. The analysis is developed from the process againstOmar Al Bashir, Sudan’s President-in-Office, at the International Criminal Court. Consideringthat norms and rules have a social role in the multiple relations existing between agents andstructures, that is, they transform relations in the international system, the article investigates the dispositions and principles present within the scope of the International Criminal Courtthat authorize a discrimination between States. This distinction implies the imposition ofinternational rules for some actors and the maintenance of certain sovereign prerogativesfor others. More specifically, international criminal justice is characterized by selectivityin judgments, as some countries are given certain authority over the regime. In this sense,it is argued that the sovereign (in)equality that is present in international criminal law issimultaneously a manifestation and condition of possibility for the hierarchy in the social,and therefore institutional normative, and political architecture of the international system.It is argued that the presence of this sovereign (in)equality can be identified at the differentlevels of the institutions of international society, insofar as they influence one another.

No abstract

O presente artigo visa entender como se dá a gestão das grandes potências, França e Alemanha, frente à assumida crise de refúgio atual no contexto europeu. Para tanto, partimos da noção mais ampla de “instituições primárias”, parte do léxico da denominada Escola Inglesa (EI) de Relações Internacionais (RI), e, mais especificamente, da candidata a instituição primária que parece ter maior poder de constranger as demais – o great power management.  A partir da comparação entre duas importantes potências europeias – Alemanha e França – a primeira fora, no que tange o poder de veto, da institucionalidade internacional core de great power management e a segunda inserida nessa mesma institucionalidade -, busca-se verificar de que forma ambas traduzem o denominado “novo humanitarismo” como mecanismo de gestão internacional ao responderem, ainda que diferentemente, à percepção crescente de que a Europa enfrenta contemporaneamente uma crise de refugiados.